Should Military Police be required to meet the same requirements as Civilian Police Officers ?

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 08:08:22 -0400

Civilian police officers must be 21 yrs old in order to be employed as a police officer. They must also attend a police academy that is several months long and pass the Police Officers Selection Test (POST). Law enforcement on a military installation involves the same crimes as the civilian sector but many MP's are very young and only attend a few weeks of the MP school. Under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) MP's are now recognized as Federal Law Enforcement Officers yet they are not qualified to serve as police officers anywhere in the US. However under LEOSA they will soon ( with the proper credentials) be able to carry a concealed weapon nation wide regardless of state and local concealed carry law reciprocity. I firmly believe that all personnel wishing to serve as MP's should have to be 21yrs of age or older, have to attend the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) and pass the POST exam before being allowed to serve as an MP. This not only ensures that they are thoroughly qualified like everyone else, but also certifies them so that should they leave the Army they are qualified to serve in the civilian world.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2014 8:16 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 08:16:52 -0400

I agree 100%. I think their AIT should be at FLETC in GA, I think they should have to follow every aspect as a civilian LEO, or federal LEO.

Response by SPC Sven Pacot made Apr 5 at 2014 12:52 AM

SPC Sven Pacot — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 00:52:14 -0400

The answer is simple. Yes and without a doubt. There are a lot of Soldiers who join the Service as MPs to serve their country and then become police in the civilian world. Where they end up upset, is when they get out they find out that there is no equivalence and have to do all the training. Why not help everyone out and make the training the same across the board. <br>

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 5 at 2014 4:00 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 04:00:05 -0400

SFC Grundzinskyi

You bring back to mind a quote I've heard repeatedly over the years about MPs, "In the field they think they are Infantry, and in Garrison they think they are cops, when in reality they are neither."

However, I think if we are going to continue to rely on MPs to enforce the laws, they need better training in order to do so.

That's akin to saying all we need for medical care is combat life savers. They can take care of the injured until they get to a Dr.

Not only that but I have many friends who are civilian LEOs in multiple agencies and they have a very low regard for the majority of those applicants who are prior MPs.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Apr 18 at 2014 12:35 PM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 12:35:10 -0400

I know, by know means A LEO. I have very little training.There was an 11 week coarse shoved into 4 weeks. We went over a lot of stuff. Reports, UCMJ, and Patrol tactics. Had some firing time. Then switched to field, entering and clearing buildings, Hasty traffic entry points, ECP's and ACP's. I would love to see an accredited LEO coarse and to be grandfathered in to it. Or to be allowed to go to GA and attend that class, as the Army would pay just like any other school at Rucker or where ever. That way the younger joes could get a job on the outside. And as far as the looking down on MP's that are trying for a job, I have been approached twice because they found out I was an MP! Just don't meet the age requirement. They say you don't look that old!!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 19 at 2014 5:27 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 19 Apr 2014 17:27:00 -0400

I believe that it would help create a more professional and competent Police Corps that can respond to a wider variety of situations. I am a 31B and 31E and would love to see the training standards stepped up a lot. <br>

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2014 7:36 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 07:36:37 -0400

Ok this is probably not going to be a popular response but so be it. I am a Military Policeman. The training that these MP soldiers receive is adequate.

When did you complete the formal United States Army Military Police School at Ft Leonardwood, MO? (Sister services sorry don't know where you go) But it might surprise you to know that USAMPS is now integrating the Missouri POST (Police Officer Standards Test) into its curriculum. So the assumption that the training is substandard is incorrect. Most agencies use POST standards when training and evaluating new officers.

Its easy to say that MP soldiers are poorly trained, but most Installations and in recent years Office of the Provost Marshal General has required standardized Law Enforcement Certifications before those soldiers even begin duties as MP soldiers on post. Agencies are brought in to train, evaluate and test these soldiers and it is becoming in some places an annual requirement for retraining. So they are receiving training. Where it gets tricky with accreditation as federal law enforcement is where federal law and Department of Defense split paths on specific laws. And the LEOSA Act defined military law enforcement for the purpose of concealed carry, not enforcement of law, only for the credentialing of universal concealed carry that law enforcement as afforded.

Lastly, MPs are no stranger to this classification or castigation from others. "They think they are infantry in the field and cops in garrison" mentality. No, wrong again if they are trained properly and molded by NCOs and Officers, they know exactly what they are in the field, Military Police Soldiers with a tough job and almost zero respect from those they serve. When they return to garrison they know exactly what they are Military Police Soldiers that work round the clock answer every call there is from your neighbors dog barking at 3am to when a soldier beats their spouse or kids to a bloody pulp, yup they are there doing the job. Again with almost zero respect, show me one police department with a 100% crime solved rate and the best police officers in the world with zero defects. I hear the same gripes about civilian law enforcement, they suck at their jobs, they just want to be military and they are just shooting unarmed civilians...it goes on and on and on.

Here's a scenario for you: MP brings a 20 year old soldier back to the barracks for underage drinking. (Not DUI, but underage drinking) Now in some instances that 20 year old will be grateful and realize the MPs cut some slack and just brought him home. (We've all been there) Some instances that same 20 year old may talk smack about how he got over on the MPs. (And then everyone talks about the incompetency of the MP.) OR The MP after trying to cut the joe some slack, charges the soldier for underage drinking and you or your 1SG have to come down to the PMO and sign for him. (Then its nothing more than "MPs are just trying to ruin soldiers careers!")

Fact is, in the first instance the MP actually talked to the soldier and found out he/she is dealing with an issue and was blowing off some steam after a bad deployment. So MP takes joe to CQ and says bed him down and get him some counseling in the morning. (A lot of times CQs will never mention it the SDNCO and it doesn't get logged, but that's for another thread.) In the last instance the MP tried the talking approach and that young joe filled with bravado and not to be talked to by an MP started smack talk and ended up charged.

Fact is no matter what we do as MPs no one is going to like or appreciate what we do. Another fact is active duty MP Soldiers do receive additional training and sometimes its from US Marshal Service, State Agencies and Local Agencies. I can't speak for NG soldiers as I haven't trained with them. But I do agree that units that are reclassified to MPs do not receive the adequate training but you'd have to take that up with HQDA.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 17 at 2015 3:19 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:19:46 -0500

I'm not sure. It's been a long time since I've seen an MP enforce law on a base. Who are the civilians that enforce law on most bases? What kind of training do these guys go through and what certifications do they have. If our MPs are getting the same training, that's wrong in my opinion.

Response by SPC Ryan D. made Feb 17 at 2015 3:45 PM

SPC Ryan D. — Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:45:47 -0500

Speaking as a former Military Policemen that attended OSUT at Ft. Leonardwood, and then received re-cert training at Ft. Campbell, I can say that training is more than adequate.

I was a FLETC (Federal Law Enforcement Training Center) certified policeman with additional certifications that provided access to all state and federal criminal databases.

We were required to pass the same tests and meet the same standards as all other federal law enforcement officers (e.g. FBI and DHS)

I think the problem people run into is not all installations offered the same training while I was still in. I noticed a distinct difference in how each post handled training its MP's after they went through OSUT or (and especially) if the person came in under a different MOS and end up re-classing to 31B.

I believe OSUT is more than adequate; All training received post OSUT does not appear to be created equal. We should (if we haven't already) institute regulations that align and require the re-certification training to be the same on all installations. This would include bringing re-class training up to par with all other federal agencies.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 17 at 2015 4:03 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Feb 2015 16:03:18 -0500

Absolutely. Having interned at the JAG office at wright patt working with the military justice folks, I can tell you that most of the crime they were dealing with were young and stupid teenagers that thought they were the law because the carried a badge.

Response by PO2 Steve Walker made Feb 17 at 2015 4:18 PM

PO2 Steve Walker — Tue, 17 Feb 2015 16:18:56 -0500

i was never an mp in the military, but i served 8 years in the Navy. I am now a Chief of Police in the civilian world and i have a nephew that is a mp in the Army. we have had discussions that leads me to believe that an mp could use alot more training. the training should be modeled after civilian training, as the training is formatted in a military style. give them the same training and certify them as police officers. therefore when they decide to retire or transition out of the military they are ready to go straight into a new job as a civialan police officer

Response by SPC Angel Guma made Apr 20 at 2015 12:12 AM

SPC Angel Guma — Mon, 20 Apr 2015 00:12:57 -0400

No. They need to be held to higher standards. Far higher.

The military has an absolutely valuable resource with the MPs. You got them under contract, they aren't going anywhere. Put them through a higher standard of rigor. It doesn't have to be made as onerous as SF training, but longer and more in depth.

Response by SSgt Charles Edwards made May 28 at 2015 11:34 AM

SSgt Charles Edwards — Thu, 28 May 2015 11:34:47 -0400

I can understand your point about the length of time regarding training for those in military police. I would imagine it would be the same across the board for the other branches.

Personally speaking, cop training in the Air Force is never really over. The school at Lackland covers the basics that encompass the job as a whole and that training sticks with you forever. When a cop reports to a new base, he has to learn local procedures and how things are done. Furthermore, training is conducted every year that serves as a refresher or recertification of certain aspects of the job. While the training is short compared to the civilian counterpart, it is always ongoing.

As for the age requirement, if the DoD gas no problem sending men and women between the ages of 18-20 into combat theater, then there is no reason why those under 21 can serve, protect and uphold the law.

The thoughts regarding a concealed weapon are on point, but in 10+ years of service and working as a cop, I wouldn't trust any other AFSC/MOS with that privilege and responsibility.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2015 6:07 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 29 May 2015 18:07:45 -0400

More training is always preferable. However, we live under budgetary constraints that often keep us from obtaining our ideal. Looking from the outside in they will always apply the law of diminishing returns.

There are a number of states that do not require a minimum age of 21 to be a civilian police officer (among them are GA, VT & PA at 18, 18 & 19 respectively). As a training coordinator for the Oregon Public Safety Academy, our recruits are over 21 IAW state law. However, a significant number of the MPs in my company are not.

Young MPs are patrol officers on military installations, assigned to duties commensurate with their level of training and experience. They have Patrol Supervisors on shift to back them up and step in should they encounter a situation they are not prepared to handle.

In 2010 the Provost Marshal General of the Army issued a directive that required annual law enforcement certification training for all MPs in the grades E1-E7 and O1-O3. This sustainment training is approximately 45 training days which far exceeds the number of maintenance/in service training civilian police officers receive. I believe the Active components were given a year to execute, while the Reserve components were given a three year window. I know Joint Base Lewis McChord in WA as well as the MP units in WA, OR, AR and VA are complying with this directive which include 250-plus law enforcement tasks required by the Office of the Provost Marshal .

I have deployed twice with MP units whose ranks included certified local, state & federal law enforcement officers (to include myself). On neither was there a readily discernible difference between the quality of performance of those officers that were certified in civilian life and those that only had the training provided by USAMPS and the MOB cadre. The Soldiers that had good leadership, a willingness to learn, a strong work ethic and initiative excelled. Since this has been the case for more than eight decades crossing multiple theaters of war, the brass and the bean counters are not likely to get on board with a costly change.

I agree that having more experienced, better trained MPs is the ideal state. However, to withhold the MOS from initial entry Soldiers would create a recruiting dilemma and a branch management nightmare of epic proportions. Additionally, as we see our funding get slashed with a return to a garrison army, it is unrealistic that we would ever get the funding to send our MPs to FLETC in addition to their MOS specific training.

Response by CPO Susan Peterson made May 29 at 2015 11:46 PM

CPO Susan Peterson — Fri, 29 May 2015 23:46:56 -0400

I see too many men and woman who are either fresh out of boot camp or A-school who have not even seen the real military world as "boots" and have done their time learning to be a soldier or sailor. Where I worked we called them non-rates with a gun, scarey thought to think they have never been to a school like a police type academy or learned to clean a toilet.
The other bad thing is that these young folks really are not taken seriously because of their lack of law enforcement training.
Men and women who are put into a law enforcement position should be trained to the fullest, not just given a gun and vest.

Response by SPC Warren Smith made Jun 15 at 2015 12:33 PM

SPC Warren Smith — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 12:33:20 -0400

The maturity of most 18 -19 -20 year old MPs are far higher than that of your normal 21 year old police recruit. I would agree that more training should be done for the actual knowledge of the criminal code, but I would put my brothers and sisters in the MP Corps up against any cops out there. Any military installation is a small city and we've been guarding the sheepdogs well for many years.

Response by Rick Wiseman made Jul 18 at 2015 10:03 AM

Rick Wiseman — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 10:03:14 -0400

I attended MP School at Ft. McClellan. There they covered the basics of being an MP. Once we got to our Duty Station we were REQUIRED to attend several more weeks of training that brought our proficiency level to where the standards required us to be. We were trained by Civilian LEO's as well as other Federal LEO's. We were also the first to use the Computerized Shoot Don't Shoot training which is just now being incorporated into Civilian Department Required training. We set the standards as far as training went. Now as far as the age thing goes, I think it's a travesty that as a Country we tell an 18 year old that they can't drink, in some places they are trying to make it illegal for an 18 year old to buy cigarettes, and they can't legally purchase a handgun but, they can serve and DIE for this Country. Either you need to be recognized as an Adult at 18 or the Military needs to raise the legal age that you can enlist. These kids are fighting for rights they don't or aren't even legally entitled to... Make the standard the standard across the board or don't call it a standard...

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Jul 19 at 2015 12:14 PM

SMSgt Thor Merich — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:14:27 -0400

The short answer is no. Even though the jobs seems similar, the is a huge difference between civilian LE and military LE. Also, the sad truth is that the majority of MP's could not meet the background standards to be a civilian police officer. At least in the more progressive states that have POST standards. I went to MP school in 1981 and have been a Civ LEO for over 30 years. I have also spent 3 years in our recruitment unit. I am a big proponent of hiring former military as police officers. But very few can pass the strict background standards. I am currently a Security Forces reservist in the AF. I can only speak for AF LE standards, but we are very far behind the civilian standard. In the AF, the qualifications to be considered for Security Forces are fairly low. They should be higher. but it is not. There is also are huge differences between civilian and military LE. In both the AF and Army, MP's also have a combat function. A combat MP and LE MP are two different animals. If the Army and AF had a separate career field only for LE, they could raise the standards to meet near civilian standards. Currently, I believe only the Navy has near civilian-like standards.

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Jul 20 at 2015 5:12 PM

SMSgt Thor Merich — Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:12:12 -0400

The biggest problem is the standards between the military and civilian world are miles apart.
The process to be hired as a Civ LEO is far more extensive than the requirements to be a MP. It includes a written exam, a oral exam, a physical agility test, two medical exams, a lie detector test, a psychological exam and an extensive background. Many people fail the background due to poor credit, too many traffic tickets, and drug use. The process takes anywhere from 6 -18 months. In California, statewide, 5 in every 100 candidates are hired. In many departments (mine included) the number is less than 1 in a 100. After that, the candidate must pass a academy (that can be anywhere from 20 weeks to 6 months) and where the failure rate can be as high as 30%. After the academy, there is a one year probation period where the candidate can be fired without cause.

Even of you provided the same training to MP's as Civ LE it would not make them equal to Civilian LE because the individuals are not the same. The military could not meet it commitments if they required the same standards as Civilian LE to become MP's.

Response by MSgt Marvin Kinderknecht made Aug 1 at 2015 5:38 PM

MSgt Marvin Kinderknecht — Sat, 01 Aug 2015 17:38:43 -0400

Agree. I do believe the military has a different mission. Not sure what the MP does but I know they need more range training. Example--the Fort Hood shooting.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2015 12:32 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 12:32:54 -0500

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2015 1:24 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 13:24:13 -0500

My biggest concern is the OJT that Mp's get. Civilians usually work for months with a partner before they can go on their own. MP gets his 2-3 weeks of LE Cert, and maybe a week of OJT, then get told go get em. In my eyes not enough.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Nov 3 at 2015 4:25 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 16:25:42 -0500

You mean the ability to eat many donuts?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 4 at 2015 12:10 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 00:10:22 -0500

I’m not an MP, so I have no idea the level of training they receive, so no opinion there. However, in regards to Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) I’m against it. Not just for MP’s, but for all law enforcement. I’m not anti-cop, but I am against giving them a special status. Police are civilians. I don’t think they deserve any special privileges than any other citizen. Once you’re out of your jurisdiction you should need whatever permit or licensing the rest of us need in order to carry.

Response by SGT William Howell made Nov 17 at 2015 11:19 AM

SGT William Howell — Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:19:55 -0500

Being a former Police Officer and MP I don't think this needs to be done for all MPs. MPs don't just work garrison and from my understanding most post use civilian DoD for the LE mission now.

MP have a much greater responsibility than just LE. Our job in combat is to go behind the infantry and release them to push forward. We then take over the duties of civilian law enforcement, detain the POWs, guide and guard the supplies moving forward, enforce the laws of the UCMJ for military personnel and most importantly make sure the enemy does not sneak up behind the infantry as they are pushing forward. It is not all about writing tickets and taking the drunks to their 1SG. So not everybody can be a 21 year old certified police officer. There has to be drivers, gunners, guards, fire teams, radio operators, correction officers, and so on.

Now MPs that are doing garrison patrol should receive more training in LE role. Maybe a school like Victor 5, but for patrol. I think it would not only benefit the post, but if a soldier could actually get a POST Cert he could get a job when he got out.

Response by SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT made Dec 4 at 2015 6:26 AM

SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT — Fri, 04 Dec 2015 06:26:34 -0500

When I went thru USAMPS OSUT school in 1977 we had to be qualified in many police functions including traffic control, drugs, weapons, vehicles and a very precise traffic accident processing that included freehand sketches with a very demanding marine gunny

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 8 at 2015 10:36 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 08 Dec 2015 10:36:25 -0500

There should be a substantial change in training for MPs. Initially train traditional MPs from where they could vet good candidates for "Garrison" or traditional law enforcement, they would have the same requirements any other Law Enforcement agency, this would also solve the problem former of former MPs in being qualified for civilian Law Enforcement.
FLETC is always booked, but each state has an academy, send them there or it would be more practical to set-up a military-owned FLETC for all services.

History:
The US Air Force at one time had Security Forces divided into Garrison (Traditional Patrol) and Security forces, Fence and Gate Guards. The Navy requires the rank of E-5 to attend Master at Arms school, this however more of a Ship's Marshall and most Naval bases have Patrols composed of non- Master-at Arms, who are on shore duty with no formal Police training.
Many a State Representative has tried in every state to fund a way have Military experience count towards a civilian job, especially law enforcement.

Response by SFC Bruce Pettengill made Apr 22 at 2017 11:25 PM

SFC Bruce Pettengill — Sat, 22 Apr 2017 23:25:39 -0400

Response by SMSgt Lawrence McCarter made Apr 23 at 2017 12:05 AM

SMSgt Lawrence McCarter — Sun, 23 Apr 2017 00:05:32 -0400

At various points the Air Force did have two separate career fields in the Security Police, Security and Law Enforcement. Most of My time was spent in Law Enforcement including Patrol, Desk Sergeant, Flight Chief and even Security Police Investigations. A great deal of what I learned in the Air Force including Motor Vehicle accident Investigations, Crime scene investigations etc , I was able to apply to another career as a Civilian Police Officer. I found esp. on very large installations the experience of all of us ended up being extensive. I did also however find that experiences I had in a Combat setting which involved protecting the base from enemy attacks etc. in Viet Nam which more resembled infantry functions that prepared Me for handing some things as a civilian Police Officer I may not have done as well with if it were not for some of the negative things I saw or experienced in a war zone. An example of that would be fatal motor vehicle accidents, violent crime scenes etc. I also believe the concept of teamwork in the Military and doing things not because You wanted to but because You knew they had to be done and therefore You performed those duties. Not everyone has the mind set for Law Enforcement and putting up and tolerating things most people would not but still be capable of overcoming other issues including the use of force without losing it. Its not for everyone.

Response by SFC George Smith made Apr 23 at 2017 12:57 AM

SFC George Smith — Sun, 23 Apr 2017 00:57:02 -0400

this is a question that has been going around ever since i was at Ft Gordon Ga in 1973 ...

Response by MSG James Hughs made Apr 28 at 2017 12:06 AM

MSG James Hughs — Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:06:08 -0400

JUST MY OPINION...... I think there should be TWO separate police elements ONE the standard MP units we have today to take care of the bulk of policing activities. TWO I think for Federal installations we should have Federal Marshals to handle the serious crimes like rape....murder etc
WHY?.... MPs are, many times, not equipped to handle major crimes.... during the Cpt Jeffery McDonald murder case.... for example the MP's screwed up the crime scene so bad it became impossible for the military to prosecute Cpt McDonald..... MP's even used the bathroom during the crime scene investigation.... With a few exceptions our MPs are just not capable of handling a major crime.....and increasing the training would help but probably not solve the problem....

BTW I conducted Civic Action programs in North Carolina.... during one of my MedCaps a doctor brought a 12 year old girl to me and said he suspected the girl had a brain tumor....we are prevented from actually treat patients in America so we recommended she go to a civilian clinic... the family had no money.....so my unit volunteered to pay the bill.....X-rays showed the doctor was correct.....she had a brain tumor.... again the family had no money so my unit stepped up again and paid for the operation.... WE SAVED THE LITTLE GIRLS LIFE AND SHE RECOVERED..... why did I put this little story here???? Because that doctor who saved the little girls life was CAPTAIN JEFFERY McDONALD..... my next door neighbor and friend..... I will never believe he was guilty of killing his family.... and part of the reason he spent half his life in a Federal prison was the incompetency of the Fort Bragg MP's

Response by SSG Kenneth Hatley made Jun 16 at 2017 5:28 AM

SSG Kenneth Hatley — Fri, 16 Jun 2017 05:28:27 -0400

This shows how little you really know about the Military Police.

Response by MAJ Sheldon Smith made Jun 28 at 2017 10:32 PM

MAJ Sheldon Smith — Wed, 28 Jun 2017 22:32:56 -0400

The MP School is certified by FLETC. It's acknowledged in the civilian world.

Response by SrA Tony Schamberger made Jun 28 at 2017 11:32 PM

SrA Tony Schamberger — Wed, 28 Jun 2017 23:32:59 -0400

I think the opportunity should be there, I would encourage anything that offers my veteran brothers/sisters an opportunity to continue on in the civilian life. Absolutely. I question sometimes if police should be held to MP standards. :) kudos!

Response by SPC Curt Dennis made Jul 9 at 2017 10:45 PM

SPC Curt Dennis — Sun, 09 Jul 2017 22:45:11 -0400

Yes! As a Department of the Army Civilian Police Sergeant and MP veteran, I have become involved with the Fraternal Order of Police and interface with civilian police officers regularly.

The military police are tolerated, nothing more. The veterans who are now civilian police will backstab and trashtalk the MPs from their own memories and experiences (either as MPs or not) The civilian cops who ARE NOT veterans have no clue as to how to treat MPs.

If the MP schools (all branches) were elevated to the position of FLETC with THAT many weeks dedicated to law enforcement, then MAYBE there would be a change in attitude.

Response by SGT Christopher Lachcik made Aug 31 at 2017 8:39 AM

SGT Christopher Lachcik — Thu, 31 Aug 2017 08:39:30 -0400

A few weeks of school? LMFAO. 21 weeks plus LEO training is required for all MP's when they get to their unit or anytime you are stationed at a new post. I had to do the 21 weeks of MP school at Leonard Wood, then I got stationed at Fort Bliss which I had to do the MPLEC there before working the road and every year did a recert. Then I got stationed in Korea and had to do MPLEC again at Humphreys right at battalion. Then I got stationed at Carson and had to do MPLEC again there to work the road and the gates.

Response by MAJ Sheldon Smith made Dec 26 at 2017 5:53 PM

MAJ Sheldon Smith — Tue, 26 Dec 2017 17:53:27 -0500

The MP school is now certified by FLETC, so their training is as good as If not better than their civilian counterparts, but, many local jurisdictions will even require veteran officers from other states to attend at least an abbreviated academy.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2018 4:42 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Aug 2018 16:42:34 -0400

Military Police One Station Unit Training is 5 months longs and extremely rigorous. The belief that MP Soldiers are undertrained is untrue. However, it is valid to say that MP Soldiers are under-credenitialed. Law Enforcement Certification programs very from duty station to duty station and Commander to Commander with no obligation to meet the state credentialing requirements and with no standardized requirements from the MP Regiment

Response by SPC Erich Guenther made Nov 23 at 2020 2:56 PM

SPC Erich Guenther — Mon, 23 Nov 2020 14:56:30 -0500

"Since U.S. Army Military Police Soldiers and U.S. Air Force Security Forces Airmen are members of the armed forces, they are prohibited from exercising domestic law enforcement powers under the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA), a federal law passed in 1878. MPs may enforce certain limited powers, such as traffic stops, on access roads and other federal property not necessarily within the boundaries of their military base or installation. When combined, the Posse Comitatus Act and Insurrection Act place significant limits on presidential power to use the military in a law enforcement capacity. The PCA directly applies only to the Army and Air Force, without mentioning the Navy and Marine Corps. The Navy and Marine Corps are limited from enforcing domestic laws due to DoD policy and regulations."

So my answer would be NO, precisely because of the above and it moves the MP closer to a civilian enforcement role which is unacceptable under our Constitution. MP force is roughly analogous to Railroad Police, Federal Reserve Police, or any other private police force. They all defer to Civilian Police when it comes to Civilian. There is no need to elevate an MP Police Force higher than it is now. Further, each Civilian Police Department is run locally and it's defined role is different compared to another local Police Department. So I am not sure training them to Police Department Academy standards would prepare an MP for a walk over to Civilian LEO role without significant additional training.

Response by SSgt Clare May made Nov 23 at 2020 4:30 PM

SSgt Clare May — Mon, 23 Nov 2020 16:30:13 -0500

No. Period. Military roles are not anything close to civilian roles. Security field don't need to understand how to diffuse a domestic violence event...they need to stop intruders into priority areas...and a combat role is all they need to do. You want to do both? Then do what I did...do both.

Response by SSG Bill McCoy made Mar 15 at 2021 2:21 PM

SSG Bill McCoy — Mon, 15 Mar 2021 14:21:33 -0400

As a former MP, I pretty much agree with you. When I got into the MP Corps from the Medical Corps, I was 22. I will say that some great MP's that I supervised were under 21 and very few were sub-standard soldiers or MP's.
According to a briefing our MP reunion group got at the MP School at Ft. Leonard Wood, there are several LE departments - mostly Sheriff Dept's - that accept MP training as sufficient and hire former MP's. The training they get today is much better than "back when." Still, I agree on the age limit being at least 21.
The Navy, when they first started their Master At Arms (MAS) force, required candidates to be at least a PO 2nd Class (E-5) and 21 years of age. They went to the Army MP Investigator's Course at first; but the last I read, they use the USAF training. Prior to the MAA MOS rating, the Navy used Shore Patrols made up of an assortment of sailors. Many were assigned to "Armed Forces Police" units in various larger cities (Wash, D.C., Chicago, etc).

Response by SSG Byron Hewett made Mar 15 at 2021 3:28 PM

SSG Byron Hewett — Mon, 15 Mar 2021 15:28:43 -0400

they should already be, the MP's do the same things, we just lower our age standards to 18 where I work still have to attend POST if its for a state, county, or city agency but if they have met federal standards then they should get hired with the amount of experience they are leaving the armed forces with. My agency is always in need of more office, but we a state agency but our POST academy for our agency is 5 weeks and its not any tougher than an MOSQ school.

Response by SPC Cathy Goessman made Mar 16 at 2021 1:25 AM

SPC Cathy Goessman — Tue, 16 Mar 2021 01:25:37 -0400

I disagree. The vast majority of calls don't involve advanced training and most MPs do not go on to law enforcement after service. Full LEO training would be a waste of time.

Edit: I'm not sure why RP brought up a topic from 2014 but I can't seem to delete it so oh well.